SESAME WORKSHOP
v.
SEAWORLD PARKS & ENTERTAINMENT, INC.
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
The District Court for the Middle District of Florida granted the joint motion of Sesame Workshop and SeaWorld Parks & Entertainment to maintain a seal on confidential and competitively sensitive documents filed in connection with an arbitration award confirmation proceeding.
The Court granted the parties' joint motion and maintained the seal on the relevant documents indefinitely, finding that the requirements of Local Rule 1.11 were satisfied and that the parties demonstrated a sufficient basis for maintaining the seal regarding documents containing confidential and proprietary business information.
[1] A court may grant a motion to maintain a seal on previously sealed documents if the parties demonstrate a sufficient basis for maintaining the seal, such as the presence…
[2] The common law right of access to judicial records is well established.
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The right of access to judicial records pursuant to common law is well established.”
Establishes the foundational principle that judicial records are presumptively open, creating the heightened scrutiny standard for sealing requests
Previewing 1 of 3 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceOn September 21, 2023, the Court entered an order sealing SeaWorld's unredacted Cross-Motion to Vacate and Response in Opposition to Sesame Workshop's…
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Petition To Confirm Arbitration Award cases and more on FLexlaw
This case is before the Court on the joint motion (Doc. 33) of the parties, Sesame Workshop and SeaWorld Parks and Entertainment, Inc., to enter an order pursuant to Local Rule 1.11 preventing the expiration of the seal previously ordered by the Court (Doc. 25) with respect to SeaWorld's unredacted Cross-Motion to Vacate and Response in Opposition to Sesame Workshop's Petition to Confirm the Arbitration Award, and the attached declaration and exhibits.
Indeed, on September 21, 2023, the Court entered an Order granting the Parties' Joint Motion to Seal and sealing the subject materials for the duration of this case. (Doc. 25). Then, on September 30, 2024, this Court entered final judgment. (Doc. 31). The parties have now moved pursuant to Local Rule 1.11(c) and (e) to maintain the seal in this case to prevent the expiration of the seal and disclosure of confidential materials and competitively sensitive information.
The right of access to judicial records pursuant to common law is well established. See
Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978). Thus, when parties request an order restricting access to pleadings and evidence filed with the court, such a request warrants heightened scrutiny. Indeed, when a request for filing under seal is made, Eleventh Circuit precedent setting forth the governing standard and the public's interests, as well as the requirements of the Local Rules, should be addressed. See U.S. v. Rosenthal, 763 F. 2d 1291, 1293 (11th Cir. 1985); Nixon v. Warner Communications, Inc., 435 U.S. 589, 597 (1978); Chicago Tribune Co. v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., 263 F. 3d 1304, 1311-12 (11th Cir. 2001); Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court for Norfolk County, 457 U.S. 596, 606-07 (1982); Microlumen, Inc. v. Allegrati, Case No. 8:07-cv-350-T-17TBM, 2007 WL 1247068 (M.D. Fla. April 30, 2007).
Upon due consideration, and for the reasons articulated in the Court's prior Order (Doc. 25), the undersigned finds that the requirements of Local Rule 1.11 are satisfied. The parties have demonstrated a sufficient basis for maintaining the seal regarding the relevant documents which contain confidential and proprietary business information. The parties' motion (Doc. 33) is GRANTED, and the seal established by the Court's prior Order (Doc. 25) shall remain in effect indefinitely.
DONE and ORDERED in Ocala, Florida on January 9, 2025.
PHILIP R. LAMMENS
United States Magistrate Judge
Copies furnished to: Counsel of Record Unrepresented Parties
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- Nixon v. Warner Commc'ns, Inc., 435 U.S. 589 (U.S. 1978)
- Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court for the Cnty. of Norfolk, 457 U.S. 596 (U.S. 1982)
- United States v. Rosenthal, 763 F.2d 1291 (11th Cir. 1985)
- Rogers v. Minn. Life Ins. Co. (M.D. Fla. 2022)